Current volume


I am keeping an eye in Polo. I am expecting sell side to be used. If not, i will ask BTC from FLOT and sent them some NBT :wink:


I think it’s on the tube.


So shareholders arent getting any T1 liquidity out of nulagoon anymore? Why are we still paying them? Isnt that a breach of contract?


Also hitbtc has 0 sell side for days!
Perhaps i should put a nubot there :stuck_out_tongue:


“The funds placed at Tier 1 will be 10% of the total fund or more.”

NuLagoonTube is T3 not T1. I will make a motion to that effect, but i cant believe i have to. The tube is clearly off-exchange reserves.

“Im going to hold a bunch of money in my pocket, please give me $5k/month” is not a business plan.


Their pay is about $1500 per month. If I’m not mistaken, the way they’ve been doing that isn’t in breach of NuLagoon’s regulations; they are only obligated to put a small part of it in T1 which is presumed to be Poloniex. But ever since the launch of NuLagoon Tube they’ve become short of manpower, so NuLagoon can’t perform very consistently.

While strictly speaking they might be getting in muddy waters, presenting a conflict of interest that could hinder the full execution of NuLagoon’s contract, NuLagoon Tube is a reasonable extension to Nu’s infrastructure. It’s probably more beneficial to negotiate with NuLagoon to rewrite their contract and amend some regulatory stuff over this.


Without the 10% T1 liquidity, i fail to see how nulagoontube is any different than any other 3rd party exchange and why we should subsidize their exchange and not others. Without T1 liquidity, NuLagoon is not an MLP, and we should not be paying for it.

How much liquidity does nulagoon have on poloniex on a regular basis? How about HitBTC? This information is really all the shareholders should care about when evaluating NuLagoon performance.


$ 14,593

Current Liquidity

Traders seem to trade using bots. The gateway orders seem to be out of the reach in which the traders’ bots make their business.
I dare say, the volume will only rise (if ALP keeps failing), if the BTC volatility vastly increases.

I very much long for market aware offsets - this way we can move the offsets in relation to the market situation, increasing the offset even more during volatile times.
That would save Nu a lot more money than the gateways already do…


Do you know if that’s something @desrever has planned for NuBot?


It might already be here

although I dont’t know how and where the market data comes from.
Maybe @desrever can enlighten us.
I’ll have a closer look at NuBot 0.4.1 soon :wink:
Looks like it has been moved to 0.5.1:


Orderbook mirroring comes first prolly.


That’s right. We haven’t talked about that for a while now. I remember @desrever saying that he would start off with parametric order books as a first step, and then eventually move to order book mirroring…

@Nagalim, you were not with Nu yet when order book mirroring was first discussed and voted on. Have you ever shared your opinions on what was talked about in this thread?

Finalized evolution of liquidity operations


Order book mirroring is important as a first step toward fully aware bots. My vision of ALP is that of an operator that adjusts compensation actively based on parameters set by the client. The client (and the person running the client) seeks to find profitable strategies as a hybrid of best market making choices and highest ALP rewards. I dont exactly imagine order book mirroring as the be all and end all as JL saw it, but i definately 100% think that it should be an option to run NuBot in pure arbitrage mode.


According to ( explanation in ), N-day average volumes are

Pair    ALix 1    ALix 3    ALix 7    ALix 14    ALix 30    ALix 60    ALix 90
Poloniex BTC/NBT    1575.7703    12138.0333    16987.0262    13729.6378    10695.7512    8585.8256    9364.0224

Yesterday’s daily volume on Poloniex was 1576 NBT, average in the last 60 days is 8586 NBT (5.4 times). Liquidity on the buy side was perhaps less than 100 NBT yesterday but ~10k (~100 times) in the last 60days. The contrast in liquidity is much larger.

This suggests that there is a volume floor which you will get even the wall is 0 on one side.

Increading liquidity is not effective in increasing volume.


Can increasing liquidity be achieved by tightening the spread?
And if yes, should we do it?

I don’t want to start a discussion here about the question: what good is that liquidity for, if it makes Nu no revenue…

But it matches my gut feeling that Nu might be better off providing less volume at less costs (maybe with a tight peg) with a combination of ALP and NuOwned operarions - just like outlined in my “paradigm shift” thread.
Market aware offsets will help a big deal providing reliable liquidity with a reduced volume.


$18,630,000 USD .

Probably a record but I think it will go up and up :slight_smile:


only 1 exchange offer NBT , nothing a bout the record


start small, go big.


BTW There are two exchanges listing USNBT. Southxchange and Bittrex.